JAGAT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman and was employed as a Driver in GREF, is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not giving him pension and gratuity.

(2.) The petitioner was actually a member of Indian Armed Forces till the year 1955 when he was transferred to the Pension Establishment. In the year 1962 he was employed as Motor Transport Driver in the General Reserve Engineering Force (hereinafter referred to as "GREF"). The petitioner avers that at the time of his employment with GREF his date of birth was checked from the Discharge Book issued by the army authorities, which was not returned to him at any time during his service. He claims to have served the GREF as a Driver from March 20, 1962 to January 5, 1978 i.e. for more than 15 years. He further avers that vide order dated August 27, 1976 the petitioner was confirmed as M.T. Driver. w.e.f. May 24, 1974. His grievance is that under the provisions of Rule 49 of the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972 he was entitled to the payment of pension and gratuity. He claims to have made a number of representations and on having been failed to get a satisfactory order he has approached this Court through the present petitioner with a prayer for the issue of a mandamus directing the respondents to fix and release his pension as well as gratuity.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been averred that the discharge book and other papers were never produced or given by the petitioner to the Recruiting Officer. A certificate, dated March 10, 1975 has been produced to show that the petitioner had not produced the Army Discharge Certificate. It has been further pointed out that the petitioner was born on March 11, 1916 and as such should have retired on March 31, 1974. His retention in service beyond March 31, 1974 upto January 5, 1978 was wholly illegal and on account of the petitioner's default in not producing the Army Discharge Certificate at the time of his entry into service. It has been further averred that the petitioner had not been confirmed on the correct date of his retirement and as such was not entitled to pension and gratuity. Other averments in the petition have also been controverted and it has been stated in paragraph 12 of the written statement that terminal gratuity benefits amounting to Rs. 5,790/- had since been paid to the petitioner vide Bank Draft dated July 3, 1985. As such, no other amount is due to the petitioner.